18
stage were strengthened in their belief that the teachers were indeed agitating for trouble. Their belief was confirmed in particular by the following three instances:
(a) On the 9th June 1977, after the students
had assembled in the playground displaying slogans and refusing to go back to their classrooms, the Acting Principal, on the advice of the Education Department, verbally instructed the teachers individually by name to bring their classes back to their classrooms. Only one teacher responded but her compliance failed to bring her class back. Apparently, this situation was considered by the authorities as indicating that all the teachers (even those who took no part in the disclosure of financial irregularities) were defying authority and instigating the students to disrupt classes.
(b) The students' objection to the new contract
conditions for their teachers could only have arisen by their being somehow informed by at least a few teachers. (In fact, we have direct infomation from both students and
some of the teachers that they did discuss this matter in class and outside school hours.) It would appear natural, therefore, for the authorities to interpret this instance as the teachers making use of their students to bring pressure to bear on the authorities in order to attain their own personal objectives.
/(c)
19
*
19
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.